kio said:
I was under the impression that the UC of Nance stuck to Middle Cornish,Nance rejected the Later Cornish of Jenner .(I am not talking about the lexicon here, just orthography and syntax),

The UC dictionary does have some later forms (spellings) though Nance did normalize according to the Middle Cornish orthographic tradition (you remember, the one that Keith says didn't exist).
for example UC does not allow for pre-occlusion.

UC doesn't write pre-occlusion, but Nance describes it explicitly; he does not suppress it.
UCR was the revision that moved UC further forward to Tudor times,and was seen as a bridge between the UC of Middle Cornish and Late Cornish.

Yes. Strangely, many features which were present in Jenner's Handbook were omitted from Nance. Jenner wrote pre-occlusion, and distinguished /ø/ from /y/, for instance. I'm not sure Williams considered UCR to be a bridge, not as much as the later KS1 was seen as such. UCR corrected shortcomings of UC which happened to make it more inclusive in terms of later Cornish. But it was not until UC and RLC users were talking together about how we could move forward to a Fifth Form that the group that became UdnFormScrefys looked to Jordan's Creation as a foundation text that could actually be that bridge.

As far as I can see KK and UC are identical as far as syntax and the lexicon.

And indeed pronunciation. Ken George speaks UC, whatever he may write. As does every other KK user I have ever heard speaking, except Ben.
In fact propanants of Kernewek Kemmyn have been criticised for using some aspects Unified Cornish syntax, and Nance's neoligisms.(NJW's critique of Brown's grammar and the KK dictionaries ).

True. I think the reason syntax is so tricky for many is two-fold. First, most L1 speakers impose their L1 habits on their L2 and unless there are other good influences on them that can "stick". Remember the SWF publication whose title was evidenlty intended to mean "Steren, the Cornish Puppy"? Unfortunately that title, as it stands, cannot possibly mean that. *Steren an Kolyn Kernow is ungrammatical and means nothing. Steren Kolyn Kernow would mean "The Star of the Puppy of Cornwall"… It's hard for English-speaking L1 learners to get a handle on this. The same thing happens to learners of Irish, though there is so much good Irish around that one unlearns the English habit without too much trouble.

Palores said:
It is unfortunate that most of the detractors of KK criticize it without having studied it intensively.

You are mistaken. In the first place, we are "critics" not "detractors". We don't just "run down" Kernowek Kebmyn for the sake of it. We criticize it for its many shortcomings and errors. In the second place, we have, indeed, examined it intensively. We just don't find that it measures up.

If they were to do so, they might then perceive its advantages.

We are quite well aware of the features of Kernowek Kebmyn that you consider to be "advantages".

We do not, after evaluating those features, consider them to be advantageous, however. Aesthetically, we do not consider it an "advantage" to avoid traditional c/k/q in favour of the "logical" k-only. We consider the use of hw instead of wh to be a definite disadvantage, as we consider the sound to be [ʍ], not [hw] or [xw]—so hw can cause poor pronunciation. We do not consider the convention of doubling consonants to mark short vowels to be advantageous, because the disadvantage of veering far away from traditional orthographic forms—which we admire even if you do not wish us to—outweighs any possible advantage. The one advantage of Kernowek Kebmyn is its attempt at a close relationship between sound and spelling. UdnFormScrefys adopted this principle and stands by it. In fact the principle is only partially expressed in the SWF, which does not distinguish the different values of u any better than UC does, for instance. This is easily corrected, and KS does succeed in having a very close relationship between sound and spelling—even with regard to the dialect choices which may apply.

Rather than condemn words which are from periods other than Middle Cornish, KK accepts them, but attempts to up-date or back-date them to the form which they would have had in Middle Cornish, then re-spells them (if necessary) in accordance with its morpho-phonemic principles.

Well, I'm afraid that Kernowek Kebmyn falls down on this one. In the first place, the process you describe is common to conlangs. Tolkien did the same thing when coining words in Quenya and Sindarin. So many of George's etymologies are problematic if not just wrong, so I simply don't think we can take them as read (as the SWF does).

We don't believe that the "morphophonemic principles" attributed to Kernowek Kebmyn are in fact advantageous... certainly not where they cause an abandonment of traditional orthographic forms, when traditional forms can be just as accurate. Or more so. Consider KK karyn 'carcase', kegin 'kitchen', kemmyn 'common', kenin* 'garlic', kolyn 'puppy', konin 'rabbit', and kwilkyn 'frog'. The final syllables are pronounced the same in every case. Even in the Gerlyvrik they are. What possible sense are school-children to make of this? Perhaps they are to rely on their knowledge of etymology, and remember the spelling from the Middle English careyn, British Latin cocîna, Classical Latin communio, Lhuyd's kinin, Common Cornish *koligno-, Middle English cunin, and the vexing Old Cornish guilschin alongside Late Cornish kwilken and quilkin.

Lyver, from Latin librum, contrasts with niver from Latin numerus. But surely they rhyme. Are the KK spellings based "morphophonemic principles"?

They are not. They are based on some sort of etymological reconstructionism. (In the Gerlyver Meur we find kenin, Breton kignenn, Welsh cennin, with the explanation "Although Welsh has , the Cornish could not have contained /nn/. or the word would have had [dn] in Late Cornish; but Lhuyd wrote kinin." In the Gerlyvrik we find kennin. I guess Ken changed his mind.)

That, Palores, is the sort of thing to which we object in Kernowek Kebmyn. (There is much else besides.) Its arbitrariness is rank. These spellings are not "improvements" in Unified Cornish. ("Improvements" is the word Ken uses when he wants to pretend to answer criticism by gainsaying.) Their presence in the SWF is also, anecdotally, causing problems for students and teachers.

What I have written is not "detraction". It is criticism. What I have written does not show that I have failed to study Kernowek Kebmyn intensively. What I have written does not show that I cannot perceive the advantages you impute to Kernowek Kebmyn—it shows that I reject them as disadvantageous. I doubt you will engage in actual debate about any of this. You never do. You'll either go into hiding or whip back some vague snappy come-back as though that were an answer to criticism.

Just as expected, "Pieter" responds in typically fanatical style. Michael has just written a gentlemanly critique of certain items he considers to be erroneous in Kernewek Kemmyn. He attacked no one. Instead, he made certain linguistic points. Nothing 'unpleasant' about it.

Rather than address those points, "Pieter" responds by ad hominem attack (which he loves to accuse others of at a drop of a hat). Unpleasantly and superciliously, as usual.

This response illustrates precisely why non KK people have found it impossible to engage the KK hardcore in discussion for 20-odd years. And we did try. Many, many times.

I find it unpleasant that Evertype rarely comes here to do anything other than write attacks on Kernewek Kemmyn at great, great, length.

I find it unpleasant that his attacks on Kernewek Kemmyn are repetitive, pompous and boring.

I find it unpleasant that his constant attacks on Kernewek Kemmyn are a distraction for anyone that just wants to get on with learning and using the language.

You see, "marhak", 'unpleasant' is in the eye of the beholder. And if I find it 'unpleasant' then 'unpleasant' it is.

In another place you will have seen that someone told Evertype that he had 'missed the point'. Nothing more. And yet in the eye of the beholder - Evertype - this was so unpleasant that he resorted to calling that person 'nasty' and 'snide'.

So please don't get too precious about who is guilty of ad hominem attacks.

As for engaging with the KK hardcore, many non KK people have done so over 20-odd years. There are even non KK people that appear to be members of the KK hardcore.

If engaging with them didn't work for you, I can't say I'm too surprised. So many times we've seen on C24 how you behave when dealing with people that you don't agree with. Or even when dealing with people that you only think you don't agree with just because they spell Kowethas with a K.

It is an unfortunate fact of life, "Pieter", that you find any criticism of KK "unpleasant". You simply don't bother to READ THE POST to see what that criticism consists of. In Michael's last post, his criticism was structured and sincere. It did not attack those who devised or use the system but simply highlighted some problems with that system.

If ever KK is to be improved, then such criticism has to be read, examined and taken on board. The only time that ever happened was 20 years ago when Williams pointed out the flaws of the tj/dj graphs. These were adjusted almost immediately to ch/j.

Since then, other problems have been identified and detailed - and been totally ignored. Such constructive criticisms immediately become "attacks" and those bringing up those problems are condemned as somehow harmful to the revival and must, in reprisal, become subjects of your own attacks.

It's defensive behaviour at best, offensive at worst. Yes, I readily admit to snapping back if someone attacks or sneers at me, or my colleagues, and your posts have a consistently sneering tone. Your 7th and last paragraphs above are sufficient examples.

If I can converse with people like Pol Hodge, Mick Paynter or Phil Rendle without rancour (and I do - and all of them spell Kowethas with a K), then it puts the lie to your final sentence. Those people don't have the chip on their shoulder that appears to be weighing you down.

Poor dear "Pieter". Whether the anonymous person was "snide and nasty" or whether what the anonymous person said was "snide and nasty" really makes little difference. Either way my adjectives were a response to another example of more tiresome ad-hominem abuse that I put up with, because I dislike Kernowek Kebmyn and, of course, disliking Kernowek Kebmyn makes me a target for abuse. In any case I edited the statement for clarity.

My comments above respond to innuendo by Palores. He implied that anyone who criticizes Kernowek Kebmyn is a "detractor" who has failed to study it. In fact, we have studied it thoroughly and stilll find it unacceptable. Then he implied that we are not intelligent, because we do not recognize its "advantages" (since obviously anyone who studied it thoroughly would recognize its "advantages"). In fact, we know what the reputed "advantages" are, and we can easily describe the reasons why we think they are in fact disadvantages. Finally, he offered a description of the KK methodology for determining the spelling of words, and I gave some examples of why we consider this methodology to be undesirable, because it offers learners obstacles to easy spelling.

So really, we have Palores quipping veiled insult, and me simply responding with explanation and refutation. But no matter, "Pieter". Nothing I will ever say will please you, I'm sure. Still, despite your evident disapproval, I'll just have to keep doing my best to make positive contributions to the Revival.

Palores said:
[quote=marhak]Since then, other problems have been identified and detailed - and been totally ignored.

All have been examined in detail. Apart from a few minor points, which have been corrected, the criticisms of KK have been found to be unsubstantiated.[/quote]Have they, indeed, ""been examined"? By whom? You always use the passive voice as though it conveys greater authority.

In any case, in many years of examining it, I and others (who use their real names) have found that the claims made about the accuracy, consistency, theoretical soundness, and utility of Kernowek Kebmym are unsubstantiated.

I wonder if you would respond to my points about the "etymological vowels" above. Do you really believe that that mish-mash of -in and -yn offers learners any "advantage"?

marhak said:
It is an unfortunate fact of life, "Pieter", that you find any criticism of KK "unpleasant".

There is some truth in that, "marhak". But it isn't a KK thing.

I also find Evertype's constant criticism of the SWF unpleasant, and if he came here on a near daily basis to have a go at Unified or Late Cornish I would find that unpleasant too.

And destructive.

Evertype said:
Whether the anonymous person was "snide and nasty" or whether what the anonymous person said was "snide and nasty" really makes little difference.

I agree, but, at the risk of being judged 'snide and nasty', you've missed the point entirely. What does make a difference is that neither the person nor what he said was 'snide and nasty'.

Evertype said:
Either way my adjectives were a response to another example of more tiresome ad-hominem abuse that I put up with

No they weren't. They weren't at all. And that is the point. I've been back and reread the posts. Your adjectives 'nasty' and 'snide' were a response to someone telling you that you had 'missed the point entirely'. Which you had. There was no ad-hominem abuse levelled at you. None. Even the
moderators felt obliged to point that out to you.

Evertype said:
You always use the passive voice as though it conveys greater authority.

Whereas you always use the Royal We. Both are affectations, although you will doubtless argue that yours is justified because there are at least two of you that think identically.

Palores, have those examinations and conclusions been published or otherwise placed in the public domain? This is important. I see the criticisms but never the counter argument.

On the non-KK side of things - we don't all necessarily sing from the same hymn sheet. You guys seem to think that if Nicholas says "jump!", we say "how high?" - but this is not so. Far from it.

People like Eddie and I don't hesitate to say so if we think Nicholas or Michael are wrong, or haven't considered all the available evidence. They're not ogres. They won't eat us alive. They take in what we say and include our evidence in their discussion. More than once, they have adjusted their initial opinion, simply because they recognise that one should look at as much evidence as can be found before arriving at a conclusion. Any reasonable scholar should, and they do.

Nor are they anywhere as arrogant as some try to make out. I haven't a qualification to my name. No letters after it. Sod-all. But Nicholas - an associate Professor of Celtic Studies (which includes linguistics) - acknowledges that my knowledge of the place-name corpus is greater than his and gives me the appropriate respect. As does Michael, whose work with minority languages all over the world is utterly unequalled.

Similarly, archaeologists such as Professor Sir Barry Cunliffe actually value the opinions of this particular rank amateur. Cunliffe even thinks my original theory of why Dumnonia recolonised Brittany and Galicia in the 5th century is probably right (one day I'll write the paper). With my lack of paper qualifications, regardless of the years of experience, I shouldn't have the right to be in the same room with these people, but they don't look at it that way at all. They treat me as an absolute equal. It's a respect you can't buy, and you certainly can't demand. They will only give that sort of respect if they think you've earned it.

I value this sort of communication, discussion and mutual respect regardless of letters after names. I can't value it highly enough. Then I contrast it with Keith (and others) - and their unacceptably arrogant "only fluent speakers' opinions matter" attitude.

If they were true scholars, they would accept criticisms, engage in learned discussion and improve the revived language accordingly. But no - any mention of the faults that still tarnish KK is an "unwarranted attack" and the people concerned aren't worth engaging in discussion.

Until you guys climb out of Andy Pandy's basket, and start engaging with other linguistic scholars instead of demonising them, the revival will go nowhere. Our side of the fence has always been ready to discuss. The ball is, and always has been, in your court but you (or at least the KK heirachy) have consistently refused to do so. Even at an early date, we invited Ken to join in discussions to put a compromise form of Cornish together, along with people from the UC, UCR and RLC camps. He flatly refused. His attitude was that any Standard form would be KK or nothing. Happily, his view turned out to be that of a tiny minority. The majority at last, had a say. Back in 1987, the proponents of KK knew that it was so radically different to any form of traditional or historic Cornish that it was bound to create opposition. That didn't matter to you. You just went ahead and imposed it anyway, regardless of any other view. In my honest view - which I know you're not going to like - it was power-freakery unchained.

Sometimes, "Pieter" it is difficult to counter points that you raise. You jealously conceal your true identity, unlike Michael, Eddie or me. We haven't a clue what your record or ability in the language really is. Whether you write and speak it well, just look up a few handy books, or phone a friend. You will, of course, make claims in that regard, but how do we verify them? With anonymity, verification isn't possible. We might be communicating with someone who knows a great deal, or someone who knows very little. You could post up a whole screed in flawless Cornish - but who wrote it? You or a friend? How do we tell? The word of a pseudonym is not enough and it is not one that can be readily accepted by anyone.

The Cornish Language Board invites teachers of the language to a Day for Teachers to be heald on Saturday the 20th of June at the Council Hall, Truro. Further information and enrollment form from Maureen Pierce, the Secretary of the Cornish Language Board mpiercekernow@btinternet.com.

marhak said:
We haven't a clue what your record or ability in the language really is. Whether you write and speak it well, just look up a few handy books, or phone a friend. You will, of course, make claims in that regard, but how do we verify them?

What on earth do you mean, 'you will, of course, make claims in that regard'?

I have never once made any claims about my ability in Cornish, or lack of it. Nor will I, so you won't have a problem with verification.

As far as I'm concerned, whether I 'speak it well, just look up a few handy books, or phone a friend' is irrelevant as far as C24 is concerned.

It is perfectly legitimate for people to comment on the views expressed on C24 whether they are fluent speakers or just observers of the language. I don't need to make claims in that respect. Nor does anybody else.